Send system notifications to users through native OS notification systems. Display messages and optional titles directly on the user's desktop or notification center.
Send OS notifications using native notification systems.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| message | Yes | The notification message to display | |
| title | No | Defaults to current project, generally omit |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, suggesting a safe, non-destructive operation with limited scope. The description adds context by specifying 'native notification systems,' implying platform-specific behavior, but doesn't detail aspects like permission requirements, notification duration, or user interaction effects beyond what annotations cover.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, clearly stating the tool's function. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (2 parameters, no output schema) and annotations covering safety, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details on behavioral outcomes (e.g., how notifications appear or are dismissed) and doesn't compensate for the absence of an output schema, leaving gaps in understanding the tool's full impact.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear documentation for both parameters ('message' and 'title'). The description doesn't add meaning beyond the schema, such as examples or edge cases, but the schema adequately defines parameters, meeting the baseline for high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Send') and target ('OS notifications using native notification systems'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'insert_text' or 'read_symbol', which are unrelated to notifications, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or in what context it's appropriate. There's no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where this tool is preferred over other notification methods, leaving usage entirely implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.